National Shower Express, Inc.; Rickaby Fire Support, B-293970; B-293970.2, July 15, 2004

National Shower Express, Inc.; Rickaby Fire Support, B-293970; B-293970.2, July 15, 2004 TITLE: National Shower Express, Inc.; Rickaby Fire Support, B-293970; B-293970.2, July 15, 2004 BNUMBER: B-293970; B-293970.2 DATE: July 15, 2004 ********************************************************************** Decision A A Matter of: National Shower Express, Inc.; Rickaby Fire Support A File:B-293970; B-293970.2 A Date:July 15, 2004 A R. Wade Curtis, Esq., Belnap & Curtis, for National Shower Express, Inc., and Stan Rickaby for Rickaby Fire Support, the protesters. Donna Wysocki for Bishop Companies, Inc., an intervenor. Daniel N. Hylton, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency. Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST A 1. Agency reasonably eliminated proposal from consideration for award where the proposal contained general statements of compliance with the technical requirements, but failed to clearly demonstrate how its proposed equipment would comply with the requirements. A 2. Agency may properly reopen discussions in order to correct a procurement defecta**a**improper post-closing discussions only with the awardeea**a**even though an award had been made and the award price announced to all offerors. DECISION A National Shower Express, Inc. protests an award to Bishop Companies, Inc., and Rickaby Fire Support protests the reopening of discussions, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 49-03-06, issued by the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Interagency Fire Center, for mobile shower facilities at various locations. A We deny the protests. A BACKGROUND A The RFP provided for award of multiple fixed-price requirements contracts, for a base year with 4 option years, for mobile shower facilities to be located near 30A cities in 12 western states, including Alaska, which were identified as *designated dispatch points.* The RFP required that the proposed shower facilities, including equipment and personnel, be located within 20 miles of the dispatch point and ready for deployment throughout a specified availability period. One award would be made for each dispatch point. Offerors could propose shower facilities to be considered for award at any number of dispatch points. A Award was to be made on a *best value* basis to the offeror whose proposal met the minimum requirements of the solicitation and was most advantageous to the government considering price and the following technical evaluation factors (in descending order of importance): (1)A proposed equipment, (2)A past performance, (3)A experience, and (4) technical approach. These technical factors, when combined, were approximately equal to price. A Of relevance to this protest was the most important technical factor, proposed equipment. In this regard, the RFP provided as follows: A The Government will evaluate the proposed shower unit of each acceptable offer to determine to what extent the unit will meet or exceed the stated performance requirements. Minimum requirements will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. In addition, shower equipment will be evaluated based on condition, durability, privacy, design, capacity and flexibility of gender usage. RFP SA M.3.A.1. Further, in the RFP*s instructions for preparation of the technical proposal, offerors were specifically cautioned as follows: A The technical proposal will be used to make an evaluation and arrive at a determination as to whether the proposal will meet the requirements of the Government. Therefore, the technical proposal must present sufficient information to reflect a thorough understanding of the requirements and a detailed description of the techniques, procedures and program for achieving the objectives of the specifications/statement of work. Proposals which merely paraphrase the requirements of the Government*s specifications/statement of work, or use phrases as *will comply* or *standard techniques will be employed* will be considered unacceptable and will not be considered further. RFP SA L.5(b). A Price proposals were to be evaluated for reasonableness and for demonstrated understanding of the level of effort needed to successfully perform these services. RFP SA M.3.B. In this regard, the RFP required each offeror to complete not only the solicitation schedule of prices, but also to submit a detailed breakdown of individual cost elements, including overhead and profit. RFP SSA M.3.B, L.5(c)((1)(b). A The Forest Service received initial proposals from 42 offerors for 64 mobile shower facilities by the closing time.